I cant believe I read on hear about a slow year and a couple of you are bringing the blame too fish farming, Give your head a shake, maybe you need to do some research on your own, just because some rich people who have bs, bsc, m.d.whatever it is behind there names,you are jumping on the bus!! Its not 1950 anymore the worlds population has exploded, the amount of food that is needed to feed the world has excelled. Now I am not putting the blame on any one industry, we have all done are part, but you think commercial fishing has slowed down at all?? Do you think they are making nets smaller?? DO you think the mills are making less paper?? the building industry is making smaller houses?? I live in campbell river and to me it does not seem like it!!WHen I talk to my friends and family around canada they all see that real estate is sky rocketing. This means growth.. If anything with proper management fish farming is helping you people, buy competing with the comercial industry, and filling some of the market. and ok maybe you need to find an excuse if you are guiding some people out, and you cant find a fish to taste your hook. BUt how about letting the people know of other things that could be causing the problem. and maybe next time you go fishing instead of bringing the biggest net you own out, leave it at home, use a lighter line, give the fish a chance, then you can call your self a sports fisherman, and not a food fisherman.
slow year
- Thread starter sven
- Start date
scott craven
Well-Known Member
Fish farming disrupts the natural eco-system....
there are layers of excrement and food waste that build
up in time and destroy the natural sea life under the pens.
not to mention adding toxins to the surrounding waters.
Is it a neccessary practice? maybe, but i certainly
don't want them in our local waters.
there are layers of excrement and food waste that build
up in time and destroy the natural sea life under the pens.
not to mention adding toxins to the surrounding waters.
Is it a neccessary practice? maybe, but i certainly
don't want them in our local waters.
Charter Tofino
Well-Known Member
Im not educated on this topic at all but if these farmed fish are being sold to stores isnt that partially a good thing as it prevents some of our wild stocks from the same fate.Or are more wild fish being killed from toxins/disease than being spared from dinner? any thoughts?
nedarb2
Active Member
r.s. craven, i am not educated in this area either, so i dont no if your right or wrong so im not in a position to argue 
, but you said that waste and otehr crap builds up in fish pens and kills other wildlife under the pens, but depending on the farms and their location, is the size of the pens big enough to make a difference? if the farms in areas such as sansum narrows, would the current not carry out the crap that builds up? and is the farmed fish going to save more wild salmon from being killed than the wildlife that it kills by doing so?
, but you said that waste and otehr crap builds up in fish pens and kills other wildlife under the pens, but depending on the farms and their location, is the size of the pens big enough to make a difference? if the farms in areas such as sansum narrows, would the current not carry out the crap that builds up? and is the farmed fish going to save more wild salmon from being killed than the wildlife that it kills by doing so?
R
Riptide2
Guest
Fish farms can solve the disease, escapement and waste concerns by using tanks or ponds on land instead of pens in open oceans.
Kildonan
Well-Known Member
Agreed, however I have heard the argument it's not economically viable to do this and it would kill the industry. I personally disagree with that. I think people who buy salmon from the grocery store would pay extra for eco-friendly farmed fish as opposed to the current farmed fish. Although, this is just my opninion for what it's worth.
scott craven
Well-Known Member
i don't claim to be an expert, however have read some
material about pen raised fish, and there isn't much positive
to be said about it. google "Sea lice, broughton archpelago"
this is another problem linked to farm fish.[V]
material about pen raised fish, and there isn't much positive
to be said about it. google "Sea lice, broughton archpelago"
this is another problem linked to farm fish.[V]
Shermanater
Member
I believe salmon farming is a good thing. I think it is a good thing for wild salmon. It should however be limited to a land based industry. I don't buy the too expensive/un-economical story. They used to say that heli-logging is too expensive as well.
Now they are everywhere along the coast stripping the steepest of mountainsides. Just my thoughts......[8D]
Now they are everywhere along the coast stripping the steepest of mountainsides. Just my thoughts......[8D]
saltydawg
Well-Known Member
Sven
check it out
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Oceans/Aquaculture/Salmon/
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Oceans/Aquaculture/
http://www.raincoastresearch.org/salmon-farming.htm
I've heard all your arguments before but there is no denying that your industry as it is now, is helping to destroy our resource. Among other things.
check it out
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Oceans/Aquaculture/Salmon/
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Oceans/Aquaculture/
http://www.raincoastresearch.org/salmon-farming.htm
I've heard all your arguments before but there is no denying that your industry as it is now, is helping to destroy our resource. Among other things.
Oglthorpe
Active Member
Maybe try treehugger.com while you are at it. Fish farming gets a bad wrap because a few "environmentalists" go out and dip net a couple of sick fish out of their kayak, sounds like a pretty random sample to me?
Anybody can get onto the news, into the newspaper etc. and speak their mind, it doesn't mean what they are saying is correct. The fish farm industry is out-numbered by these David Suziki/Sierra Club organizations, who as you all know, like to get into the news and cause a fuss whenever they can.
A properly located and managed farm does not pose a threat to wild stocks, and like stated earlier in the post, is a form of enhancement as it helps take some pressure off of wild stocks. Just imagine how fished out the wild stocks would be without farming. [8D]
Anybody can get onto the news, into the newspaper etc. and speak their mind, it doesn't mean what they are saying is correct. The fish farm industry is out-numbered by these David Suziki/Sierra Club organizations, who as you all know, like to get into the news and cause a fuss whenever they can.
A properly located and managed farm does not pose a threat to wild stocks, and like stated earlier in the post, is a form of enhancement as it helps take some pressure off of wild stocks. Just imagine how fished out the wild stocks would be without farming. [8D]
saltydawg
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry I don't buy that.
Sven, your industry will get more support when it goes closed pen.
Oglthorpe, you're out to lunch bud. These are valid concerns that have been researched and acknowledged by Svens industry.
In the meantime this sums it up for me-
Raincoast research-"Salmon farming is not sustainable. It starves one ocean of fish, and pollutes another with the same fish. Its profit margin is so slight it can not afford to deal with its own waste. Its product is of questionable food quality being high in PCBs, low in omega oils and dyed pink. It is favoured politically because it produces salmon without a river, leaving the resource rich watersheds of British Columbia open for exploitation. It is a classic example of destruction of the commons to promote the privately owned"
Sven, your industry will get more support when it goes closed pen.
Oglthorpe, you're out to lunch bud. These are valid concerns that have been researched and acknowledged by Svens industry.
In the meantime this sums it up for me-
Raincoast research-"Salmon farming is not sustainable. It starves one ocean of fish, and pollutes another with the same fish. Its profit margin is so slight it can not afford to deal with its own waste. Its product is of questionable food quality being high in PCBs, low in omega oils and dyed pink. It is favoured politically because it produces salmon without a river, leaving the resource rich watersheds of British Columbia open for exploitation. It is a classic example of destruction of the commons to promote the privately owned"
Bouy O Boy
Member
Fish farming is just one of many things to blame the slow fishing on.Fish farming is ok like everyone says if its managed properly or land based. One of the biggest problems if the non native species being farmed,distrubing mother nature. The warmer water temps over the years doesn't help, for example the Fraser river and Thompson river problems. The water temp there is normally 17 degrees and now its getting close to 21 degrees and fish can't survive in those waters. It all has to do with man messing with mother nature. Oil spills in estuary's, chemicals spilling in rivers,logging near river systems, over fishing dying stocks. One thing I've never agreed with is targeting fish once they have reach thier spawning rivers. Limits are another thing, I've worked at sportfishing lodges as a guide for 7 years and the amount of fish people take is rediculous.Specially when you see guys take 4 trips a year who needs that many fish. Everyone thinks about today not tomorrow, when one day all fishing will be closed. So it takes everyone in this industry to work together to keep the stocks of salmon up. I have no problem releasing a 50 or 60 pnd fish. You watch the next species to have a problem is going to be Halibut, just like the lingcod of Georgia Strait.
T
Tanglefoot
Guest
Excerment!, I gotta wade right in here First, close the freekin commercial fishery, then close the freekin native fishery, then close the freekin fish farmining D) and all that would be left is a fishery that has a licence to make money</u>. SPORT. Having said all that, I wouldn't eat a farmed fish if I knew it was farmed. FLAME _ On [:X]
Tom
First, close the freekin commercial fishery, then close the freekin native fishery, then close the freekin fish farmining D) and all that would be left is a fishery that has a licence to make money</u>. SPORT. Having said all that, I wouldn't eat a farmed fish if I knew it was farmed. FLAME _ On [:X]Tom
R
Rob Warren
Guest
Thank goodness the laws don't see it that way. The order of things are first and foremost conservation, then Native Food Fisheries, Commercial, and then Sport Fishing. The Natives need this food to survive the winter months and it is their inherent right. The commercial fishers need this and for some is their only source of livelihood. The sporties don't really need it. It is only a privilege to sport fish nothing more. I currently guide for sport fishermen, but I have also spent time working as a fisheries officer on the other side of the fence as well. I felt bad sport fishing all the time taking from the resource, so I did something about it and worked for years patrolling a river and doing habitat management and stock assessments as well. I was also on the Herring Industry Advisory Board for a number of Years. I needed personally to put something back into the resource that I enjoy as much as anyone else. If everyone that uses the resource where to do something like this it might make a difference.
Fish farming is just a cheaper way of doing the right thing. The right thing to do is salmonoid enhancement in their natural rivers. Fish farming is a larger industry then sport fishing so naturally the government will protect their interests before the sport fisherman.
What do you think would happen if they had to catch their salmon in the ocean rather then lift them up out of a pen. Increased costs. What do you think would happen if they simply released the amount of salmon they produced in the fish farms into rivers in the wild. There would be an abundance of salmon for the sport fishermen to catch no doubt, but the profit margin would go down. What with rising fuel costs and everything else it makes more economical sense to put them into pens and feed them pellets. Nobody is worried about the livelihood of fishers or how many fish a sporty caught on any given day. The bottom line is the almighty dollar.
The Department of Fisheries in Canada much to some peoples dismay, might not have the sport fisherman at the top of their priority list, or for that matter even the general salmon populations. The reason the Department doesn't put more effort into Salmon enhancement might be that if they produced to much salmon, what do you think that would do to the price of fish on the open market? It would drop the price of a salmon in the stores. The Department of Fisheries does not manage the stocks to get the most fish it can into every river system. They manage the stocks for large corporations to get the most dollar value per pound for the fish. Fish farms are just an easier way of controlling the overall price of salmon on the open market. The facts that the herring and halibut populations are in record numbers indicate the extra salmon that could be produced could be supported by the herring populations and probly have been in the past.
I don't know what the solution might be to appease everybody perhaps a small salmonoid enhancement tax against fish farmers, not big enough that they would notice a huge drop in profit, but if they all put in a little bit there would be more salmon for sport fisherman and commercial fisherman to catch, but that would impact the price again.. so it is a catch 22 that we're all in and the Wild salmon stocks pay the price as we all go in a circle.
Fish farming is just a cheaper way of doing the right thing. The right thing to do is salmonoid enhancement in their natural rivers. Fish farming is a larger industry then sport fishing so naturally the government will protect their interests before the sport fisherman.
What do you think would happen if they had to catch their salmon in the ocean rather then lift them up out of a pen. Increased costs. What do you think would happen if they simply released the amount of salmon they produced in the fish farms into rivers in the wild. There would be an abundance of salmon for the sport fishermen to catch no doubt, but the profit margin would go down. What with rising fuel costs and everything else it makes more economical sense to put them into pens and feed them pellets. Nobody is worried about the livelihood of fishers or how many fish a sporty caught on any given day. The bottom line is the almighty dollar.
The Department of Fisheries in Canada much to some peoples dismay, might not have the sport fisherman at the top of their priority list, or for that matter even the general salmon populations. The reason the Department doesn't put more effort into Salmon enhancement might be that if they produced to much salmon, what do you think that would do to the price of fish on the open market? It would drop the price of a salmon in the stores. The Department of Fisheries does not manage the stocks to get the most fish it can into every river system. They manage the stocks for large corporations to get the most dollar value per pound for the fish. Fish farms are just an easier way of controlling the overall price of salmon on the open market. The facts that the herring and halibut populations are in record numbers indicate the extra salmon that could be produced could be supported by the herring populations and probly have been in the past.
I don't know what the solution might be to appease everybody perhaps a small salmonoid enhancement tax against fish farmers, not big enough that they would notice a huge drop in profit, but if they all put in a little bit there would be more salmon for sport fisherman and commercial fisherman to catch, but that would impact the price again.. so it is a catch 22 that we're all in and the Wild salmon stocks pay the price as we all go in a circle.
R
reel easy
Guest
RW Don't know where you got all your information from, but if you really believe what you just said, you should get a job with the bumble dept. of DFO.
Dave H
Well-Known Member
"Maybe try treehugger.com while you are at it. Fish farming gets a bad wrap because a few "environmentalists" go out and dip net a couple of sick fish out of their kayak, sounds like a pretty random sample to me?"
Notwithstanding the grammatical error contained above, (fish don't have or use kayaks) the rest is another example of classic bull crap masquerading as comment. It's basically a reference to Alexandra Morton and the method she used to collect sample fry in various areas around the affected area. By attempting to denigrate the methodology used by Alex and other researchers they hope the results will be viewed as unreliable. Unfortunately, there are two words that put the lie to this claim. Those words are "proportional representation," and they mean that as long as the method remains constant in all places it gives a true reading of whatever is happening.
And far from being a random sampling, samples have been taken at many places along the migration route of juvenile salmon, mostly pink and chum in this case. This method of sampling paints an all-too-clear picture of what happens when there are sea-lice in net pens that are reproducing at the same time that fry are migrating by.
When first sampled, near the rivers they come out of, fry have no lice load, which is natural. As they approach the farm sites they start to pick up lice loads. This is not natural.
As they leave the vicinity of the farm the loaded fry start to weaken and most will die before ever reaching open ocean. Then, the lice leave the fry to seek another host. This means the farms are actually spreading sea-lice into other areas as well.
Comparing the loads picked up after a certain number of days at sea in areas that have no farms and then comparing that to the loads showing in areas that have farms pretty well tells you where the lice come from. There is no other source, despite attempts to blame stickleback and the wild adult returning salmon themselves. And the loading is a huge multiple of what it would be if no farms existed in the area. Devastatingly huge.
Farms cannot be allowed on or near known migration routes.
Simple as that.
I don't waste my time worrying about all the other things some people warn about relative to the industry because I believe that the sea-lice transfer problem is the one we should be most concerned with. Allowing our wild stocks to perish so a few large corporations can make millions of dollars just isn't on.
It can't be.
"Anybody can get onto the news, into the newspaper etc. and speak their mind, it doesn't mean what they are saying is correct. The fish farm industry is out-numbered by these David Suziki/Sierra Club organizations, who as you all know, like to get into the news and cause a fuss whenever they can."
When I read this kind of crap the first thing that comes to mind is: "This must be a troll. Nobody could be so stupid."
But then I remember how many times I've read variations of this tripe before. It's another tactic.
For some reason all industries who face environmental questions cry the same old story. It's always how these huge international corporate sized environmental groups are causing so much trouble and have so much power and so much money and how can we, a poor little job-providing saviour of the coastal communities, if not practically a Mom and Pop group, possibly combat their anti-aquaculture lies and deceptions etc. etc. ad nauseum....after all they're so rich.
But then we're told how valuable the industry is to the economy of BC, second largest export or whatever it is and then you note that there are only about four big players in the industry and they are all large corporations with resources that vastly outnumber those of the environmental side and you say to yourself: "Hey. Who's BS-ing who here?".
And after all that, it appears all they are good for really is "to get in the news and cause a fuss whenever they can."
Gee, if that's all they do why is the industry so diligently fending them off?
Heck, a little "fuss" shouldn't be much of a problem.
Or is it because certain facts are damaging to the industry, even despite all the help DFO is handing them.......at taxpayers expense too, leave us not forget.
"A properly located and managed farm does not pose a threat to wild stocks, and like stated earlier in the post, is a form of enhancement as it helps take some pressure off of wild stocks. Just imagine how fished out the wild stocks would be without farming."
Salmon farms as a form of "enhancement" now is it?
It's enough to make a man cry.
And if you think it takes pressure off wild adult stocks, other than killing them as fry, you've not been paying attention.
By keeping the market flush with farm fish you drive the price down. When you drive the price down a commercial fisherman has to catch more fish to make the same money.
Catching more fish does not take the pressure off them.
It kills more of them.
Pretty fundamental.
I'm guessing you are young and naive or simply don't know any better.
Either that, or you're a pro-farming advocate who'll spout off any kind of crap trying to make a point.
Either way your post is garbage and I like to throw the garbage out where it belongs.
Nothing personal.
Take care
Notwithstanding the grammatical error contained above, (fish don't have or use kayaks) the rest is another example of classic bull crap masquerading as comment. It's basically a reference to Alexandra Morton and the method she used to collect sample fry in various areas around the affected area. By attempting to denigrate the methodology used by Alex and other researchers they hope the results will be viewed as unreliable. Unfortunately, there are two words that put the lie to this claim. Those words are "proportional representation," and they mean that as long as the method remains constant in all places it gives a true reading of whatever is happening.
And far from being a random sampling, samples have been taken at many places along the migration route of juvenile salmon, mostly pink and chum in this case. This method of sampling paints an all-too-clear picture of what happens when there are sea-lice in net pens that are reproducing at the same time that fry are migrating by.
When first sampled, near the rivers they come out of, fry have no lice load, which is natural. As they approach the farm sites they start to pick up lice loads. This is not natural.
As they leave the vicinity of the farm the loaded fry start to weaken and most will die before ever reaching open ocean. Then, the lice leave the fry to seek another host. This means the farms are actually spreading sea-lice into other areas as well.
Comparing the loads picked up after a certain number of days at sea in areas that have no farms and then comparing that to the loads showing in areas that have farms pretty well tells you where the lice come from. There is no other source, despite attempts to blame stickleback and the wild adult returning salmon themselves. And the loading is a huge multiple of what it would be if no farms existed in the area. Devastatingly huge.
Farms cannot be allowed on or near known migration routes.
Simple as that.
I don't waste my time worrying about all the other things some people warn about relative to the industry because I believe that the sea-lice transfer problem is the one we should be most concerned with. Allowing our wild stocks to perish so a few large corporations can make millions of dollars just isn't on.
It can't be.
"Anybody can get onto the news, into the newspaper etc. and speak their mind, it doesn't mean what they are saying is correct. The fish farm industry is out-numbered by these David Suziki/Sierra Club organizations, who as you all know, like to get into the news and cause a fuss whenever they can."
When I read this kind of crap the first thing that comes to mind is: "This must be a troll. Nobody could be so stupid."
But then I remember how many times I've read variations of this tripe before. It's another tactic.
For some reason all industries who face environmental questions cry the same old story. It's always how these huge international corporate sized environmental groups are causing so much trouble and have so much power and so much money and how can we, a poor little job-providing saviour of the coastal communities, if not practically a Mom and Pop group, possibly combat their anti-aquaculture lies and deceptions etc. etc. ad nauseum....after all they're so rich.
But then we're told how valuable the industry is to the economy of BC, second largest export or whatever it is and then you note that there are only about four big players in the industry and they are all large corporations with resources that vastly outnumber those of the environmental side and you say to yourself: "Hey. Who's BS-ing who here?".
And after all that, it appears all they are good for really is "to get in the news and cause a fuss whenever they can."
Gee, if that's all they do why is the industry so diligently fending them off?
Heck, a little "fuss" shouldn't be much of a problem.
Or is it because certain facts are damaging to the industry, even despite all the help DFO is handing them.......at taxpayers expense too, leave us not forget.
"A properly located and managed farm does not pose a threat to wild stocks, and like stated earlier in the post, is a form of enhancement as it helps take some pressure off of wild stocks. Just imagine how fished out the wild stocks would be without farming."
Salmon farms as a form of "enhancement" now is it?
It's enough to make a man cry.
And if you think it takes pressure off wild adult stocks, other than killing them as fry, you've not been paying attention.
By keeping the market flush with farm fish you drive the price down. When you drive the price down a commercial fisherman has to catch more fish to make the same money.
Catching more fish does not take the pressure off them.
It kills more of them.
Pretty fundamental.
I'm guessing you are young and naive or simply don't know any better.
Either that, or you're a pro-farming advocate who'll spout off any kind of crap trying to make a point.
Either way your post is garbage and I like to throw the garbage out where it belongs.
Nothing personal.
Take care
